V

ALBERTO AGUILAR: The professional community looks towards Kassel again to scrutinize the emergence of new guidelines in the art sphere. This is likely to be the case. What are your expectations from October onwards? What aspects of practicing lumbung do you think that the institutions or organizations that nurture the culture circuit at a global level cannot fail to implement in their work dynamics over the next five years?

farid rakun: What I can start answering is by lumbung itself. That’s the first. By inviting documenta to be part of our journey, we know this journey will continue after documenta fifteen. Whether documenta as an institution will still want to be part of that journey we still have to see. But lumbung in itself hopefully will continue and then with what is happening in documenta fifteen right now, it’s kind of clear how to continue onwards. It becomes clearer and clearer, it’s not crystal clear, but it becomes clearer and clearer how we can continue. We are proud of what we have achieved so far. It helps a lot for us, not only for myself of course, for ruangrupa as well, but also for others I think it has been helpful to think that documenta is not the last stop of this journey. Other lumbung fruitions will continue onwards. In what forms, we are still thinking about it.

We see documenta fifteen as 100 days of public celebrations of the process we have started two years ago or even more. But then this public celebration can take any other format afterwards. Maybe smaller in different localities, maybe in a different format, but the case of public celebration, multiple voices without the usual curatorial thematic approach that is kind of like very, very... we have proof that it can be done and then I think we are going to continue on that route for the next journey onwards. 

Concerning the next five years. What documenta could be, what other institutions could be, we are starting to talk to other institutions that ask that kind of question. Museums, big institutions, like from small institutions up until big institutions, global even. If they want to invite lumbung for example, what kind of possibilities, what kind of preparations practically that they have to, both of us, not only them but also us, what kind of preparations we have to do. 

It’s a difficult question to answer. Long conversations to have. It cannot be a direct answer, yes or no, possible or not, because also we learn from our past experiences as well, being invited as artists to other institutions. It’s really a clash. This time it’s a different clash because we have the possession of artistic direction and we can work for three years instead of three months, or a year even. It’s just not enough time to properly impact the institutional practice. This is where the invisible work of changing institutional work as you have understood, I think, implied from your questions.

We have to work on that and it’s a lot of time, like this documenta fifteen experience. A lot of time it’s not visible, it’s not sexy, it’s not static, it cannot be directly translated to exhibition format per se. But that is the important work we realize we have to do from the get-go because of what we have been doing. So hopefully those conversations we are still able to do after documenta fifteen with other entities. 

It doesn’t have to be global, it can be super local, but continuing to engage in these conversations can be fruitful. Especially also not only to us, the conversations, but also to others. There are a lot of collectives we learned from the research for documenta 15 that we couldn’t engage this time. But I feel localities that institutions work in as well, even big global institutions work in, they have local initiatives working or surrounding them. How to work with them, and it doesn’t have to go through us. The fact that documenta has to invite us in order to have something like ruruHaus to work Kassel initiatives, that is kind of logically absurd. But it just happened that way. So, if institutions —after this— can work directly with their neighbors, then maybe it is the change that we offered and we will be happy to make such an impact.

VI

AA: Every age offers materials from which it is possible for an individual to create artifacts or devices. Of course, “what is created” is —or should be— rooted in society: that is to say, in the urgencies or society’s problems, to which an artistic approach attempts to provide a response. In a collaborative paradigm, however, is it feasible to reach a consensus on the creative process without languishing the individual genius? Why does the communal not detract from artistic practice but rather successfully resizes it?

FR: Yes, it’s a difficult one. Forming a collective has become —in Indonesia at least— one of the main ways that artists practice their artistic model. It has become one of the main ways of doing things. It is also a lot of times in other parts of the world that we realize, as soon as the individuals have formed those collective, that is what they want. They can access what they couldn’t access before. Notoriety, fame, fortune and all that kind of stuff, then collectives stop working, and the collectives diminish. Which is fine, we understand it and we are not saying it is bad, because it is just natural.

But for us, we are able to keep on being a collective because (1) that temptation didn’t really happen to any of us as individuals, and (2) because we still give that space for individuals to flourish. We don’t say that everything needs to be done for the collective at any given time. If anyone needs time, including myself, I come and go from ruangrupa, because at one moment or another, collective work is just too much. It’s always the case. Collective work is not always the best way to do things. So when it stops being useful, I could stop and take a break, and come back, maybe not, but we don’t blame anyone to do so. We don’t say the collective need trumps the individual need. 

And then conflicts happen every day. We know each other very well, individually as well, so a lot of communication even becomes nonverbal. But then the question of we should see maybe also not as a binary. Like the collective and the individual genius example, is maybe not compatible, but one shouldn’t trump the other. That is the problem, I think, with the system right now. It has become a competition. If one system becomes big, it cannot let the other way of doing things succeed as well. I think in the capitalistic way of thinking, it becomes that. You either become a monopoly, a duopoly, or whatever. It doesn’t have space for too many different ways of working or different ways of doing things.

For us, maybe, the ideal, again I don’t know if it is realizable or not, but our way of working, at least the way we are thinking about it, this is why it is important not to be antagonistic, not to be anti- anything. De-something or un-something. “Unlearning”, we don’t use that term. “De-”, “un-”, “post-”, all that kind of stuff. The way we do things doesn’t mean that we cancel other ways of seeing things, other ways of doing things. So, the market, the individual genius, the object-making, all that kind of stuff, we understand the value of it. And a lot of the ecosystems we are working in, people also need that to strive. But it’s just like, if we succeed, then they can succeed as well. The problem until now for us, is because they see us as a threat. That’s the problem. Although we don’t see ourselves as a threat for them, because, you know, who are we to become a threat? We are not that powerful. We’re not a menace to anyone. That’s how we see ourselves. But sometimes other people see us that way. So, that’s where we kind of have to engage all the time, saying that: by us existing, doesn’t mean that you couldn’t exist.

VII

AA: Nulla aesthetica sine ethica. documenta fifteen confirms that there is no aesthetics without ethics. Nevertheless, an although the flirtation between disciplines adds up, some of the selected participants or projects are not —strictly speaking— artistic. It’s a choice, of course. In your opinion, collective practices teach one how much about oneself and how much about the other in this era?

FR: The practice of listening especially, like we said a lot of times, and it is easier said than done. Of course, we learn to do this almost every day by now. I hope we continue to be better at this, but the practice of listening is the key of this. To listen and understand where the other is coming from. Maybe like the one from before, it doesn’t mean that because we exist, it is a threat for you. If we can actually practice that —it’s really, really difficult— documenta fifteen is a very good example of that. It’s actually still a long way to go, we realize this as well, first-handedly. It’s almost utopian to say this. How do you put it, teach one about oneself, teach one about others and all that kind of stuff. But maybe it is a seed right now still, it hasn’t become a plant in whatever way. But if that seed can survive, realistically speaking, but sometimes I am not an optimist, maybe even in the next 20 years only we can see this plant grow. This seed needs time again to grow.

VIII

AA: It is not wrong to say that we are witnessing —at least in Europe— a redefinition of what a museum is. In this sense, the case is made for the ‘new museum’ to be a more permeable organism, catering to the needs of the communities with which it coexists spatially, for example. We would like to learn from the Jakarta art ecosystem. So, let’s bring up the Museum MACAN, the Art:1 New Museum, or the Galeri Nasional Indonesia. Is there a communal dimension to their activity? Are they participatory, empathetic and approachable organizations supporting their communities’ learning, access to resources, and ability to thrive? And of course learning from… Gudskul Ecosystem, Gudang Sarinah Ekosistem, Jakarta biennale, for instance. Could you, please, share with us your impressions of the art scene in your city to conclude this conversation? It was a pleasure chatting with you!

FR: Thank you very, very much for this question. I think this is a very important matter. It’s not that often that this question comes about. MACAN and Art:1 New Museum didn't exist when we started in 2000, and Galeri Nasional Indonesia did. It's as if we grew up with them. Galeri Nasional is government-owned. But MACAN is privately owned —it's not the only one— and it's also the first space that calls itself a modern and contemporary museum in Indonesia. So the symmetries, the roles have changed. We see the new developments as something positive.

In these years the ecosystem has become different. The realities are very different. Jakarta is huge, so there is space and we are all very busy doing whatever. Sometimes we meet, sometimes we don't. When we are useful to each other, then we collaborate; but it doesn't have to be. This is like when I said if one existence doesn't cancel the other. I think in Jakarta it can happen because it's too big and because there are too many things going on at the same time, so people can let themselves go, without criticising each other too much. The bad side is that we don't know each other that well, or not too close well. By the way, you could also add Komunitas Salihara, a collective with an even more established trajectory than ours.

If we grew up with them, we changed with them. If MACAN, for example, had existed in 2000, we wouldn't have done the same in our beginnings as an artists' collective. Because, as I said before, sometimes we build infrastructures when there is none. When it is already there, then we don’t have to do it. 

We stopped making festivals —like Jakarta 32, for example— for many reasons. But we haven't stopped our music festival because because we still like to do it and still see the need to do so. But both video art festivals and student forum festivals don't interest us because there are already many others that do it. We also don't do many exhibitions, at least in Jakarta, because of that, because many people do it. There are spaces catering for that need already.

As you see, we can change: our practice. We have to change it. At all times we have to respond to the different needs of the ecosystem. That's why we mutate many times: from an artists' collective to become Gudang Sarinah Ekosistem and then Gudskul. In fact, we will be Gudskul for a while. And when we are no longer useful we will rethink our path. Or we should simply leave it. There are some moments when this question arises: should we dissolve our collective? The answer so far is that we can continue to serve the needs of others, especially the needs of young people, the invisible voices. But in a different format. It cannot be the same format because we have grown old as well. RURUKIDS, for example, is for children, it started when some of us started to have families ourselves, we have children around 2007. That’s how we see ourselves. That’s why we call it ecosystem. The different roles in the ecosystem need to find their balance.

You will find the beginning of our Conversation HERE!

farid rakun is part of ruangrupa, collective responsible for the artistic direction of documenta fifteen. He holds a degree in architecture from Universitas Indonesia and a master's degree in architecture from Cranbrook Academy of Art. As an instigator, he has permeated various institutions: Centre Pompidou, La Biennale di Venezia, MMCA Seoul, Sharjah Biennial, Sao Paulo Biennial, Harun Farocki Institut, Dutch Art Institute (DAI), Creative Time, Haute école d'art et de design (HEAD) de Genève, and basis voor actuele kunst (BAK).

HOME